Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioural context not in the annotations: the coverage is limited to Canada (CWFIS) and the US (NIFC), and results are returned nearest-first. It does not say anything about data freshness or how the results are ordered when distances tie.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying scope, entities, ordering and provenance with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned entity types (hotspots, perimeters, incidents) and the ordering, and the schema fully covers inputs, so an agent can call this correctly. Missing details are minor — data freshness, empty-result behaviour, and result volume.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: lat, lng and radius_km are each documented with units, ranges and defaults. The description only echoes the radius concept via 'within a radius', adding no formatting or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

A precise verb+resource statement: 'Active wildfire hotspots, perimeters and incidents within a radius, nearest first.' It names the returned entity types, the geographic scope, the ordering, and the upstream data sources (CWFIS, NIFC), which cleanly distinguishes it from neighbours like weather and road_reports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the domain — an agent can infer this is the tool for wildfire proximity queries — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no alternative tool named for related hazards.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.